Posts Tagged ‘GMO’

This past year, City Council meetings in my hometown regarding the hazards/benefits of having fluoridated water was interesting beyond the obvious level of polarization that it created. If you were trying to be totally objective in weighing the pros and cons, you had to be impressed with the level of knowledge and research presented. I was struck by the fact that most of the best research was shared by ordinary citizens rather than health professionals.

It occurred to me that the anti-fluoride side was much better prepared in presenting actual facts and figures about the problems with adding fluoride to municipal water systems, while the professionals seemed to expect that people should agree with them just because they had a title or credentials. Today, in the age of the internet, everyone has access to Pub Med, the service that supplies published research to anyone with a computer. In other words, we all have access to the truth if we can type in a few search words.

Personally, I spend a lot of time on Pub Med. Did you know that there are over 20,000 peer-reviewed research papers published each year? Keeping up on all of the information is impossible for any one person, even if you spent all of your free time reading the available data. That is why I am always amused when another health professional tell me that there is no research to validate a statement that I have made. I just ask them if they have reviewed all of the 20,000 articles that were published in the past year. End of discussion.

The real issue is this—Can you trust the results of the research? After all, somebody had to write a check to pay for the study that was published, since most researchers do not work for free. Can the results of the research be tainted by the special interests of the industry that is funding the research? Of course it can! It happens more often than the general public will ever be allowed to know. Therefore, looking at the source of the funding is paramount.

Approximately 2/3rds of the research is funded by two industries, the chemical industry and the pharmaceutical industry. Many of the research projects that are started are never finished. The funding is pulled if the data implies that completion of the study may possibly work against the industry that is paying the bills. That information is then swept under the carpet and the public will never learn why the data was destroyed. This is particularly evident in the chemical industry, where GMO (genetically modified organism) research is often started but never completed.

Personally, I prefer to read the purer research studies published by the computer industry, for two reasons. First, they are only interested in the truth about how to create the next level of technology. They have nothing to hide from the public about studies that go horribly wrong. Secondly, they tend to model future computer technology after new research that studies the functions of the human brain. Computers have always been designed with that idea in mind.

The latest peer-reviewed research suggests that human memory is not held in the brain, or even in the body. It is held in the field of energy that surrounds the body. The brain, the neurons and the dendrites act as antennae to read the information coming in from the field as a person recalls a memory.

As the co-creator of a healing technique that has pioneered the concept of reading and responding to information from the human energy field, this revelation directly impacts my communication with the health care practitioners that I teach around the country and the patients that I treat.

In the computer industry, this research has led to the development of a new type of memory chip. It is not silicon based. Since the body is about 70% water, the new computer chip utilizes a lightly refined droplet of water. They can pour many terabytes of information into this new chip. As you might suspect, the data is not stored in the water. Water acts as a matrix/template to organize the data which is actually help in a field around the chip and even around the computer itself. This give a whole new meaning to the term “cloud computing”.

It is easy to see why I am selective about the research that I rely upon to provide the truth about the world around us. I tend to distrust the research that is funded by chemical and pharmaceutical industries, because they tend to withhold any inconvenient information from the public. When any “expert” attempts to convince you that you need to believe what they are stating, consider that they may be quoting research that came from an impure origin or denying the existence of research that is valid and factual.

The United States has agencies in place, created by President Teddy Roosevelt, that exist to protect the integrity of the American food supply. In the early 20th Century, President Roosevelt witnessed a consistent degradation of the food. So, he oversaw the creation the Pure Food and Drug Administration, to ensure that our citizens would always have access to the best quality food available.

Sadly, within one administration, that agency was infiltrated by the very industries that Americans needed to be protected from. When that happened, the adjective “Pure” became problematic, so it was removed. Today we have the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) claiming to protect the interests of the American people with regards to the food supply. Their job is to regulate changes to the growing of our food, before the public is exposed, to insure continued quality and safety.

GMO Sugar Beets are an example of a dismal failure of this regulatory process. GMO sugar beets were thrust upon an unsuspecting public several years before they officially approved. Added to that, the approval process initially only considered what the new beets might do to the immediate farm environment. They did not consider possible danger to the humans that consumed the end product–the white sugar.

You see, the government was being put under pressure to prematurely approve the beets. This maneuver was done by the chemical company that had created the GMO sugar beets. Monsanto, the chemical company, did not offer an approved alternative to the new beets, so the farmers had nothing else to grow. Fearing a sugar shortage, the government allowed the sugar to be released without completing the legal approval process. Americans have now been eating sugar from this source for over ten years.

So, is the sugar safe or not?

Forgetting for a moment that, in general, sugar is bad for you, should you be consuming the sugar that originated from GMO sugar beets? The energy signature testing we do at Morphogenic Field Technique says: No, you should not be eating this sugar if you care about your overall health. It tests very badly, as you may have observed if you have attended any of our live presentations. It makes almost everybody’s muscles incredibly weak when tested.

Why does this happen? Here are our observations:

GMO Sugar Beets are created using a process that we consider to be dangerous, the insertion of viral and/or bacterial genes into the seeds. Universally, our energy signature testing for anything created using this process has had a negative outcome.

The beets and the soil that they are grown in is sprayed with pesticides and herbicides, with residual chemicals staying with the beets after harvest and processing.

Beets are super-absorbers. If it is nutritious, the beet will absorb it. If it is toxic, the beet will also absorb those things as well.

The result: A toxic, genetically engineered beet, growing in toxic soil and eventually turned into a toxic product called white sugar.

Interestingly, our Morphogenic Field Technique testing procedure often demonstrates aberrant liver energies on people who have tested positive for GMO Sugar Beet energy.

Solutions?

Avoid eating sugar, especially if you do not know the source. If you must have sugar, buy and use only organic cane sugar products. (Most commercial cane sugar is also sprayed with pesticides and herbicides).

In our Morphogenic Field Technique classes, we like to energy signature match the “problem energies” to the “solution energies”. In our home-testing classes, we offer 4 possible homeopathic “solution energies” that you may find valuable to expand and balance the M-Field when correctly matched.

If you feel that your personal health concerns warrant a professional evaluation for more specific truly-natural protocol development, you can locate a trained MFT Professional at an event or on the MFT website here.

Remember, the only stated goal of Morphogenic Field Technique is the expansion and balancing of the human energy field, the M-Field. Years of experience have taught us that a large and balanced M-Field will move a person toward greater vitality and health, while a small or distorted M-Field usually means health-related challenges over time.

My local supermarket recently ran a newspaper ad stating that their bakery uses only non-GMO flour in their breads and pastries. I found their statement to be confusing, since all flour sold in the U.S. is non-GMO.

That said, there is a huge difference between the wheat that most Americans eat now compared to the wheat we consumed 50 years ago. The amount of confusion surrounding this issue has led me to write this detailed explanation of this important issue.

Around 1970, a new type of wheat was quietly put upon public supermarket shelves. It was the first crop to be genetically engineered. From that time forward, food in America would be forever changed. The general public was never told of this change; in fact, a great deal of time and money has gone into keeping these changes secret.

So, what is the difference between a food that has been genetically engineered (GM) and a food that is a genetically modified organism (GMO)? GMO’s are the result of a process of gene-splicing from virus’ and bacteria to create new seeds. There has been a slow, methodical creep of this kind of technology into American food over the past 5 decades.

You are no longer eating your grandfather’s wheat, corn or soy.

When I was a child, most people had never heard of of gluten intolerance. That is because largely, it did not exist. Today, gluten-free products are readily available and many people complain about negative reactions to wheat.

Why has the wheat changed and how have those changes effected the digestive health of America?

As with most of the newly created problems with our food and environment, the answer is “follow the money.” Wheat was altered with the goal of increasing the yield per acre. The plant was genetically engineered to grow shorter with a bigger diameter around the base so it would not blow over in the wind. During harvesting, more upright plants meant a larger yield. Therefore, it provided more money to the commercial farmer. That in itself does not sound bad, but there were other consequences.

Changing the plant also changed the gluten. Although it was probably an unintended consequence, the fact remained that a new grain was created. It contained much more gliadin, a type of gluten that causes inflammation in the intestines. A secondary problem with gliadin is that it binds to opiate receptors in the body and creates cravings for people to eat even more. This combination of factors has contributed to a snowballing-effect of digestive issues over the past 4 decades.

Unfortunately, it does not end there. We now have an additional problem with commercial wheat: Roundup. They recently added a new step to the harvest of the wheat: it is sprayed with Roundup/Glyphosate just before the harvest. This is done to kill the crop so that it can be plowed-under earlier before the onset of winter. An additional advantage to the commercial farmer is that it dries out the grain. Good for the farmers, but again, bad for the consumer. Non GMO-wheat is still genetically engineered and unless it is organic, it is still laden with herbicides that are toxic to the human body. The Roundup/Glyphosate increase has been scientifically correlated by researchers at MIT to the increase in many diseases, including Autism and Celiac.

The good news is that organic heritage wheat is still available to the consumer. You can purchase this from your local farmer’s market or health food store. If supermarket chain bakeries are interested in attracting an informed health-conscience consumer, it would be more helpful to ensure that organic heritage wheat flour is used in their breads and pastries.